We here at Skepticon HQ love our movement. We love that we don’t always agree, are wicked smart and have a penchant for awesome hats. Skepticon has always worked hard to cultivate a conference that celebrates such diversity and awesomeness, doing our best to ensure that any and all know that they are welcome and safe at our event.

However, after witnessing the actions of one of our years long sponsors, the Center for Inquiry (CFI), it has come to our attention that, in order to uphold the values that we have come to embody and endorse, we will no longer accept their sponsorship.

So what does this mean for Skepticon? Well, losing a large sponsor is going to hurt a little bit (we’re probably going to have to sell some of those awesome hats were were talking about) but it has made even determined than ever to make a conference that we can be proud of.

Taking this position means Skepticon is going to lose money. But they’re taking the principled stand anyway. It would be awesome if we could get some of that famous atheist fundraising juice headed their way. If you’ve recently cancelled your membership with CFI, or have otherwise withdrawn financial support, please consider re-directing some or all of that support in Skepticon’s direction. For that matter, if you haven’t withdrawn your support for CFI, or if you never supported CFI in the first place, spread some money-love in Skepticon’s direction if you can. Even a small amount makes a difference. And spread the word on the usual social media outlets!

Share this:

Like my blog and my work? It's made possible by generous support from readers like you. You can support it with a donation to my tip jar (one-time or monthly), or by buying my books and saying nice things about them.

In light of Ron Lindsay’s offensive speech at WIS2, and CFIs anti-pology (which clearly shows where their values are. Have fun with the harassers.), this first time donor chose to give to a conference that shares my values- Skepticon.

Just occurred to me: Skepticon and Greta Christina columns represented expenses for CFI, which will cancel out some fraction of the loss of income represented by the people who have stopped donating to CFI. Of course, that’s from a “starve the beast” point-of-view, and not the principled stand that I know most people are taking.

“Skepticon and Greta Christina columns represented expenses for CFI, which will cancel out some fraction of the loss of income represented by the people who have stopped donating to CFI.”

Generally, organizations don’t sponsor events or pay columnists unless they expect a return on investment, so I think this is an over simplistic view of the matter. If Neil deGrasse Tyson pulls out of an event, the organizers “save” money on paying him but they were paying him because they assumed that money was well spent. In the same vein, if the Olympics decides not to accept future sponsorship from an organization, that organization probably doesn’t feel it has “saved” money on olympic sponsorship. They had assumed that their sponsorship would get them the sort of publicity that would more than pay back their investment. So I don’t think that’s a useful way to view the situation.

But that aside, chance are that the money represents a portion of the budget allotted to columnists and events, and that money would simply be used for some other column and event (i.e. no more or less money is being spent unless other forces — such as a increase or decrease in revenue — make that necessary). The question is whether the replacement has the same value as what is lost and whether the impact of the last few weeks will have a long term impact on which individuals and organizations will want to be associated with CFI.